Alternative Methodologies for LiDAR System Calibration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few years, LiDAR has become a popular technology for the direct acquisition of topographic information. In spite of the increasing utilization of this technology in several applications, its accuracy potential has not been fully explored. Most of current LiDAR calibration techniques are based on empirical and proprietary procedures that demand the system’s raw measurements, which may not be always available to the end-user. As a result, we can still observe systematic discrepancies between conjugate surface elements in overlapping LiDAR strips. In this paper, two alternative calibration procedures that overcome the existing limitations are introduced. The first procedure, denoted as “Simplified method”, makes use of the LiDAR point cloud from parallel LiDAR strips acquired by a steady platform (e.g., fixed wing aircraft) over an area with moderately varying elevation. The second procedure, denoted as “Quasi-rigorous method”, can deal with non-parallel strips, but requires time-tagged LiDAR point cloud and navigation data (trajectory position only) acquired by a steady platform. With the widespread adoption of LAS format and easy access to trajectory information, this data requirement is not a problem. The proposed methods can be applied in any type of terrain coverage without the need for control surfaces and are relatively easy to implement. Therefore, they can be used in every flight mission if needed. Besides, the proposed procedures require minimal interaction from the user, which can be completely eliminated after minor extension of the suggested procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".